No iPhone Apps, Please — We're British

GMGruman writes "The BBC has stirred up quite a row in Britain about a shocking use of taxpayer funds: creating iPhone apps to provide citizens services. As InfoWorld blogger Galen Gruman notes, it's apparently bad in Britain for the government to use modern technology during a recession, a mentality he likens as a shift from 'cool Britannia' to 'fool Britannia.'"

Comments

Maybe something everybody can use?

[SigNuZX728]

iPhone apps are great and all, but they're not much use to people who don't have iPhones. Why not work on regular old websites? Also you run the risk of Apple pulling your app from the store. Then there's thousands of taxpayer pounds down the drain.

Re:Maybe something everybody can use?

[SquarePixel]

They might be cheaper and more open, but there definitely isn't more Android phones around. If we go by marketshare, best bet is Symbian.

However it doesn't really make any sense to make apps for such a divided market. Websites work just fine from a phone and they work for all.

Re:Maybe something everybody can use?

[qc_dk]

Because I live in Scandinavia and changing tires(summer/winter) is most certainly relevant to safe driving?

Plus, Scandinavia is one of them ebul sociamolist places without poor people, so getting your tires changed is ~$100 (cost of labour only), and I'm paying 60% tax. It makes no sense for me to work two days more to afford something I could do myself in 30 minutes.

iphone

[Frenger]

Ok, but maybe the taxpayer dollars should be spent on services that everyone can make use of, not just iPhone users.

Re:iphone

[williamhb]

Ok, but maybe the taxpayer dollars should be spent on services that everyone can make use of, not just iPhone users.

It's more than just that. If the Government develops iPhone apps, but not apps for the other proprietary platforms, then that could be seen as a Government endorsement of Apple over their competitors. Why are taxpayers' pounds being spent endorsing and promoting a foreign company's products that few can afford? Of course it offends British sensibilities -- not only is it the poor subsidising the rich (all taxpayers pay, but only the wealthier who can afford iPhones benefit), and not only does it distort the market for smart-phones, but it also puts the companies that invest in the UK and EU at a disadvantage. (Many of the other mobile developers, such as Nokia and Google, invest and employ significantly in the UK)

Re:iphone

[Xest]

Exactly, the InfoWorld blogger is an idiot if he doesn't get this.

We can't justify spending thousands on something that not only an absolute minority can access, but likely only a minority of that minority will ever bother to use anyway.

They'd even have had an argument if they'd done it for Symbian, by far the UK's biggest mobile platform, but even that would be a push. The fact they focussed on a minority, but popular device simply demonstrates they just wanted to play around with the latest gadgets rather than focus on actually doing their job. The web is far and away the most sensible option.

But it's something that effects even pseudo-public sector- look at the BBC, their iPlayer app prioritised the iPhone well ahead of any platform, despite being completely against the BBCs requirement of providing equal access to content that license payers pay for.

If it was private sector then that's fine, what they do is upto them, they may still be criticised but it's their choice at the end of the day. Public sector doesn't have that choice, you can't expect people to pay the same taxes and one of them get all the benefits and the other get nothing simply because of their choice of mobile phone particularly if the phone they chose is actually the same as the majority of the rest of the population are using. In public sector it has to be all or nothing- either support iPhone, Android, Symbian, Blackberry, MeeGo or don't do it at all and again, as people have said here a few times, the web is far and away the best platform to do it for all.

I'm sure someone will point out some fringe platform and say "Well should they support that?", no, of course there are fringe cases and they can't be expected to necessarily support 100% of platforms, but they need to make sure they at least cover the majority of the population for this sort of thing- ideally a vast majority, such as around 95% or so.

The only thing I will say is that public sector has had problems with websites too so it's not just a case of switching to the web until they sort out their issues there, one website they created (nothing overly complex, just a standard CMS albeit with lots of content) cost £105 million- how can that even be justified? Most private sector developers are saying they'd have quoted around £50,000 for the same site, maybe up into the hundreds of thousands if they had to employ staff to enter all the content and such, but £105 million? How can you even spend that much money building a website?

So public sector in the UK has a major problem with IT, the iPhone apps are just one facet of it, but sensible web development seems to be the obvious solution in most cases.

no

[Threni]

it's bad to waste money doing iphone apps when you could save money and do a website which people other then iphone users can use. Why no do android apps too? What about blackberry, symbian etc? max? linux? pc? Yes, it's a waste of money because most people haven't got an iphone, android phome, mac etc etc. Some people have a pc, and they probably have an internet connection, so a website will do. It's the BBC - they make/show tv shows.

hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it more that some people have suggested that making applications for unemployed people, that only run on phones costing 40 pounds (70$) a month is a bit poorly targeted. And that perhaps making websites for renewing car tax etc is more efficient than making apps that only run on a tiny minority of people's phones (any phone that can run an app can use the website.)

Why on earth does the government need to spend loads of money making things slightly more convenient for a tiny minority of nerds and rich tech hipsters, when these people are perfectly able to use the existing websites.

Sent from my phone, obviously!

£10000 for a flashing light?

[bool2]

"...and was shocked that people would believe it to be unseemly and even objectionable that a government was using modern technology to help its citizens in noble tasks like avoiding becoming roadkill when their motorocycles break down or keep track of potential jobs without being stuck at home all day -- the very things you'd want government to do with your tax dollars" I can't imagine why anyone would object to spending £10000 on an app to make a flashing light. And I have to wonder how many unemployed people who own an expensive iPhone will be using government jobs websites... Lets face facts here. The iPhone is a heavily locked down platform run by control freaks in California and owned by a very small percentage of the population. Tell me again why should my tax go towards supporting that platform?

Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform

[Dinjay]

Here is the BBC story if anyone is interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10514367.stm

Governments using modern technology to support/educate users should be encouraged - it will assist the UK IT industry employment, grow UK IT capabilities and give citizens the information they need when they need it. But at the same time, a government should be careful not strongly benefit one closed source platform over other platforms. Of course this doesn't mean that the UK government should build applications in all mobile platforms - just that they should build at lease some software application on another platform - preferably an open source one.

Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform

[dave420]

Fuck whether the platform is closed or not - the biggest problem is that public money should be spent on public benefit. Not everyone has an iPhone, so an iPhone-only app is stupid. At least make it a normal website, which anyone with a browser can access.

It's the upcoming cuts, not the recession

[Christianson]

The issue here isn't that there's iPhone apps being developed during a recession, it's that money is being invested in a duplication of services when the government is looking to slash spending by up to 40% across the board. When we're looking at a devastation of public services, it's hard to condone spending intended to benefit a minority of Britons with access to a luxury device.

I think it's a bad idea

[obarthelemy]

- iPhones are proprietary. Unless the Gov supports other platforms (Android, RIM, WinMob, Symbian), it is unfair to support just one.
- Could not the same results be achieved with a web-only (intrinsically multi-platform) app ?
- is the stuff that important that it MUST be available on a mobile (I should RTFA, maybe...)